Sunday, 10 November 2013

Is The Syrian Military Using Another Type Of Chemical Weapon?

Earlier this week I took a detailed look at the use of Improvised Rocket Assisted Munitions (IRAMs) by government forces in Syria. The IRAMs used in Syria are basically 107mm rockets with the warheads removed, and replaced with much larger warheads, with range and accuracy being sacrificed for explosive power. This makes it a very effective weapon in urban combat, with video evidence from pro-government channels showing them used to directly attack opposition positions at short range.

As part of that post I linked to a playlist of videos that showed IRAMs filmed by the opposition in towns and cities across the country over the past year. Richard Lloyd of Tesla Laboratory Inc, who has studied various munitions used in the conflict, contacted me, and noted something very interesting about one of the videos.

Below are several examples of the IRAMs featured in the video. As you can see, distortion from the original source video aside, they are all pretty much identical

The warhead is totally sealed, with no ports of any kind on the warhead, and the base of the warhead also has no ports, as shown below

Also note the configuration of the nozzles in this video showing an Iranian 107mm rocket used as part of the IRAM. The number of nozzles vary on the type of rocket, different 107mm rockets have different numbers of nozzles, and the 140mm M14 rocket used in the August 21st Sarin attacks has 10 nozzles

Richard Lloyd highlighted one video that wasn't like the other. It shows what appears to be an IRAM with a significantly different design

The video, dated June 30th 2013, describe this as a strange munition dropped from an aircraft (which I believe is possibly an incorrect description of it's deployment), and there's certainly a number of strange things about it. Photographs taken of the munition gives a clearer view

We can estimate the size of the munition from examining the rocket. As you can see from the above picture of the Iranian 107mm rocket it's an identical nozzle configuration, so it seems almost certain the rocket is 107mm wide. Richard Lloyd estimated the size as around 300mm wide,and 650mm long, with a volume of about 40-45 litres.

You'll note the rocket motor has embedded itself deeply into the warhead. No other example of an unexploded IRAM shows this, and if the warhead was filled with solid explosives then it seems very unlikely to happen. Richard Lloyd agrees with me that this strongly suggests that the warhead is hollow.

You'll also remember the other IRAMs didn't have a hole or a metal ring on the base of the warhead, so it's already notably different from other IRAMs. Now let's examine the front of the warhead, which shows something that's extremely interesting

On the left of the warhead is a very unusual square object that appears to be very similar to the plug on the fill port of the munition used in the August 21st Sarin attacks, which I've previously referred to as the UMLACA. The following photograph shows the base of the UMLACA warhead recovered from the August 21st attack

External

Internal

Aside from the fill port shown above, the UMLACA also had a second port on the base of the warhead, shown on the right in this image

I asked Richard Lloyd what he believe this port to be, and he said based off his knowledge, this is possibly used to arm and/or power the fuze. There's more discussion of that in this post.

So what we appear to have here is a IRAM with a warhead designed to hold a liquid of some sort. With only one example of this type of IRAM recorded in Syria so far, and little additional information, it's hard to know exactly what was inside this munition, but it's certainly a very unusual munition that's worth keeping an eye out for in the future.

Even Who Ghouta calls it the UMLACA, as well as other sites, for examplehttp://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/09/syria-un-report-ghouta-sarin-rocket-attackhttp://whoghouta.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/analyzing-previous-umlaca-attacks.htmlhttp://www.al-bab.com/blog/2013/september/more-clues-from-weapons-inspectors.htm

Most people who are familiar with it would call it the UMLACA, and it's a hell of a lot easier to find correct search results for UMLACA than "Eskimo".

You can call it a Plinky-plonk if you want, just don't expect people to know what you are talking about, especially on a blog where it's been consistently referred to as the UMLACA for the past 3 months.

There are a wide variety of missiles of the same body-style but with radically different dimensions and applications - some of which are found in Syria. The vast majority have never been associated with Chemical Warfare.

Even in Syria, there are probably five or more missiles of similar shape and only one of which is associated with a chemical warfare payload.

To tag all of these missiles with the "LACA" suffix is plain wrong and verges on the propaganda.

I guess it's a British thing to assume the Wogs begin at Calais, but have you actually done searches on other language references to this design type? For sure there are web pages in Hebrew and Russian that relate. I'm sure also there are Arabic pages and quite probably French and German as well. None of which use "UMLACA".

If you want to be neutral in language, how about using the US Intelligence description "Improvised 122mm Rocket" and then differentiate variants by the size - i.e. 107mm, 122mm, and 220/240mm.

You can call it what you want Charles, but I've been using the term for three months, and it would just be confusing to start changing it now, especially when in private discussions with various specialists and journalists we use the term UMLACA all the time. Feel free to call it an Eskimo, Inuit, Makka-Pakka, or whatever you want, just don't get arsey every time you have to explain what you are talking about.

I might start calling them "Whistle Pops" from this point onwards. Or possible UMLACASTLLWP (Unidentified Munition Linked to Alleged Chemical Attacks That Look Like Whistle Pops)http://candyaddict.com/blog/2007/08/21/retro-candy-flashback-whistle-pops/

Does the UN use the term UMLACA?Does US Intelligence?Does any serious Government agency at all?Does any serious news agency (other than quoting you verbatim)?Does "Rogue Adventurer" - your part-time collaborator use the term?

You got in early(ish) and managed to get a couple of web-sites to copy you, but seriously? Total comments on your blog on this topic are extremely low.

Face the reality. You are a niche commenter. Beyond that, coining new terms that stick has usually never been a successful experience.

Your two website references are an Arab website that knows no better, and WhoGhouta that was set up to analyse a lot of the information you provided and so uses matching terminology.

I'd answer that in full, but I've got a photographer from the New Yorker coming any minute for the article they've decided to publish about me. I guess they must be doing a special issue on "niche commenters".

I would like to urge everyone to remain civil in the discussions here. I don't think it serves anyone - or the discussion - well to make insults, witty comebacks or some combination of the two.

Some constructive criticism:

- I think the title of this post is a bit misleading - it implies that there has been a more definitive confirmation that the rocket is CW related than seems to have really been determined. As it stands, it seems to me that no evidence has been presented that directly links the new rocket to chemical weapons - only circumstantial evidence.

- Referring to the rockets used in the attack on Ghouta as "Eskimo" is confusing. Unless a person is from Russia, it seems unlikely that they will get the reference. In regards to the comment that the name "Eskimo" is "snappier", I would like to suggest that it is important that the name is descriptive more than anything else and I don't understand why being "snapp[y]" is important. It is possible I am misunderstanding the meaning of "snapp[y]", but I don't think I am. To me, the second most important characteristic of a name is being easily recognizable by everyone - and this is why I believe the term "Eskimo" is not a good one.

- It was stated that "the only place it is called UMLACA is this blog. Elsewhere it is called an Eskimo". I believe the obvious implication is that everyone else uses the term "Eskimo". Googling "Eskimo Syria Rocket" returns for the first 3 results comments on this blog that used the phrase. After that, no results used the term Eskimo in a meaningful relation to the rockets in question. On the other hand, while googling "UMLACA Syria Rocket" also returns results from this blog, it also turns up results from other websites using this phrase. And while all or almost all of these picked up the term from BMB, it demonstrates the penetration of the term in at least online media. (Admittedly, "UMLACA" is a more distinct phrase, but I think the results still stand.) So, I politely ask that someone provide some links to webpages that make use of the term "Eskimo" as these should be easily locatable given the supposed ubiquity of the term.

Misleading.Russian in Rossia do not discuss "chemical attack" because they know - it's another lie of all known sequence: Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya ... The term "Eskimo" came from Israeli military forum - there are very closely watching what is happening at the neighbors. I hope you're not an anti-Semite?

I hope you'll forgive me, I'm having slight bit of difficulty with understanding the broken English. I don't mean this as an insult, I just wanted to say that I may miss exactly the idea you're trying to convey.

The "Eskimo" term originated in an "Israeli military forum"? Hmm... Repeating my last point in my post above, could you provide a link to either the post where the term was first used or if not, a link to the overall forum? This sounds interesting - I would like to investigate it myself.

Thank you! This link is excellently specific. It does demonstrate that this term popped up relatively soon after the attack. Maybe this is a stupid question, but the website you provided the link to is the "Israeli military forum", correct? I only ask because it doesn't seem Israeli. (Although, I don't really know what that would be.) On the other hand, I did a quick search while writing this post, and found that Alexa.com (http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/waronline.org) does say that 24% of its visitors are from Israel. My only other question is, can I safely assume that you are one of the regular contributors to the WarOnline site? Actually, I just realized I have one more question: Is the thing pictured next to the title on your blog the popsicle/ice cream "Eskimo" refers to? Sorry for all the questions, but this is intriguing.

Noha307 > you are one of the regular contributors to the WarOnline site?No. There is a low level compared with the monsters as: Moses, Sasa, Petri, Charles…You have so much courtesy and so many questions - you're not from the KGB?

Is the thing pictured next to the title on your blog the popsicle/ice cream "Eskimo" refers to? Hmm ... I was very surprised by your surprise from the "Eskimo". This is an American ice cream is known around the world for a hundred years! Why do you don't remember it, what happened?

If you mean what is the purpose of the rear port, then this is something I've been trying to figure out myself. In the video of the Syrian National Defence Force firing an UMLACA they screw a black rod into the rear of the UMLACA before launch, and it's still attached to the rear of the UMALCA when it's launchedhttp://brown-moses.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/the-syrian-national-defence-force.html

A number of these black rods have been recovered from the site of impact. I thought they might have had something to do with igniting the rocket, but it doesn't appear there's any sort of access port to the rocket inside the warhead, and the NDF video shows a white cable coming out the rear of the munition that appears to be the command cable.

I spoke to Richard Lloyd about this, as he has years of experience with warhead design, and he believes it's possibly related to the fuze, maybe for arming and/or powering it. He did say it was unusual though, and wondered about the reason it would be designed like that.

"...a white cable coming out the rear of the munition that appears to be the command cable..."

It may not have any electronic 'command' purpose. It could be a simple mechanical arming lanyard for the tail device. Something like pulling the pin on a grenade. It's a cheap way to give some measure of safety at launch (however remote) by arming a meter or two after it leaves the launcher.

Next most likely after that is power for an electronic fuze. The fuze stores enough of a charge after launch to operate, but is charging until then. This is used on a lot of air-dropped munitions - it's just a power cable.

A signal cable would make sense if there was some sophisticated fuzing or guidance involved. By the looks of the device, I would think not.

If you watch the first 'big' can launch (the red beret guys), you can see the armorer fuzing both the nose and the tail of the can. The nose fuze is unusually long, like a stand-off probe. The tail charge is hard to see when inserted but seems roughly the size of the 'bicycle pump' thing. It reminds me of an RPG motor.

One needs to be very careful of any liquid from a munition which neither poisons, explodes nor ignites, in case it's some kind of bacterial broth that will cause dire consequences at a later date. Probably not in this case, but Richard Silverstein's blog did describe historic attempts to spread typhus when Israeli settlers were driving Palestinians out of their villages in 1948. Not very far from Syria and someone might have that idea.

There doesn't seem to have been any bursting charge (that worked) so perhaps it relies on the rocket driving into the container on impact to hydraulically disperse whatever's inside?

Might have been air-launched if the rocket's just there to ensure clean separation from the aircraft, rather than have the airflow bang it against the tail as it leaves, but I'd suspect this is another short range ground weapon in the Stoles Mortar class.

The container isn't very different from ones I saw in the distant past to contain farm chemicals like Paraqat, which is usually supplied as a concentrated brown liquid for the farmer to dilute before killing off weeds.

Before Charles Wood writes that herbicides are not chemical weapons, paraqat is more uniformly fatal to humans who ingest it than quite a lot of the agents used as chemical weapons in the first world war.

It will break down in the soil fairly quickly, though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraquat

Any reports of respiratory failure from the area where this was found?

This chemical is widely used in suicide and murder in the developing world, is widely available, and is compatible with the description of the brown liquid. Could be used to destroy food stocks as well as attack people directly.

Paraqat concentrate IS toxic if inhaled and via the skin.That's why the paraqat at your local garden centre is sold already diluted.Food is an important part of any siege, and other munitions were landing in vegetable fields in rebel-held areas, too, as I recall.

"...inhalation toxicity is not a toxicological endpoint of concern. Paraquat is moderately toxic (Category II) by the oral route and slightly toxic (Category III) by the dermal route. Paraquat will cause moderate to severe eye irritation and minimal dermal irritation, and has been placed in Toxicity Categories II and IV for these effects."

http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/factsheets/0262fact.pdf

Salt (Sodium Chloride) is also toxic. The term toxic is a continuum - not an absolute.

Not every national safety authority would agree with the EPA on that one.There have been inhalation fatalities after paraqat was tipped on bonfires. If Mr Wood thinks it's safe, he can bathe in it, but he will find few volunteers to do likewise. Comparing it with salt is fatuous.

In any case, the probable objective would be to destroy crops being grown in besieged areas, for which purpose it would be hard to find a more effective agent.

Maybe its time to give these weapons an official name and general description even if a lot of the information is not yet available. I am not sure which agency would undertake this type of task but maybe the UN or some other government/international entity would do it. Here is my example (this is my best guess and only an example) with just a little bit of sarcasm. Note; To Be Determined=TBD.

All in all, the use of these'' exotic'' weapons shows: 1 creativity Assad's hand or 2 destructive side of Assad's party at the obvious instructions from Iran and Russia applied the tactics of war'' scorched land'' as Russians in Chechnya or the Serbs in Vukovar

As i understand there are two different types of UMLACA-s aqround. The first one with warhead diameter 570 mm. and the second one with 360 mm. Can you be so nice and mark them as UMLACA-570 and UMLACA-360 in your next blog posts, so we could easily distinct them from each other and know better what are you talking about. Thank you!

The above is a good idea. What would really be informative is a visual size comparison between the two. Does anyone know where I could find such a comparison or could otherwise provide one? (I hate to be the one always asking for images and diagrams, but I'm a visual sort of person.)

No.What is wrong?"Dumbo" barrel length should be 2 times greater than the "Eskimo" from Zamalka ~ 1.4 meters, for example."Big mistake" - no nose fairing. Pam Anderson without boobs and Pam Anderson with tits - two big differences, huh?

Mr. Hesbol, that's excellent work - thanks! Posted 7 days ago, huh? Looks like you have excellent timing as well. While, I understand from the above discussion the dimensions and details may or may not be exactly correct, it still tells me what I wanted to know. The only suggestion I have is possibly throwing in something of an known size for reference (e.g. human silhouette, etc.). Either way, it's a better depiction than my attempt using GIMP: postimg.org/image/gdoeh8to1 (It was even based off someone else's drawing: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/109527735/draw_rocket_saa_2.png I was attempting to show difference between the markings on the rockets with different warheads, not size difference though.)

Thank you! I wouldn't mind updating the graphic with more precise measures and details - looks like it can come in handy. The original 570mm calibre measurement was based on info from Lucum, by the way.

Certainly seems to have done a lot of damage for its size.The piece left inside the building is very shiny. (Titanium or very hard-anodized aluminium.)

see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPO-A_Shmel

Note very shiny warhead section and the twist-out fins which can be seen in the film.

This device ("Shmel" apparently means "bumblebee") is confusingly described as a "flamethrower" by the manufacturer, because it usually throws an incendiary shell, but there's a fuel air explosive round as well, and a smoke one. (It's a bit too short ranged for poison gas).

It's like a one-shot anti-tank rocket, except that it's designed to gut buildings. (Not necessarily bring them down.)

The Chechen resistance described this weapon as "the devil stick" or similar during the Russian demolition of Grozny.

If it isn't an RPO-A, it's something really like it, a size bigger. (RPO-A is 93mm dia. There is apparently a 220mm vehicle launched munition which does the same thing on a larger scale.)

This is made in a factory, not improvised at all: note that the inside of the warhead container is ribbed to stiffen it against nose-on impact whilst allowing it to split open afterwards. The warhead casing is an extrusion, not something bent to shape in someone's garage.

But it is used over similar ranges and with similar effect to some of the IRAMs described above, so mlacix is on the right track. Being a shoulder-fired FAE, it may very well do similar damage to the much larger and clumsier IRAMs whilst being much easier to carry and bring into action.

You really are looking at "Made in Russia" but it might have been something captured by Chechen fighters who are now fighting in the Syrian civil war, or it might be something which the Russians have supplied to the government.

That's a useful piece of film: thank you.

PS: (rather than having a discrete bursting charge, it's effectively filled with small particles of solid explosive emulsified in liquid fuel, and on impact this makes a "soft" detonation to form a fuel-rich cloud of warm gas which mixes with the air inside the target very quickly to produce a critical mixture and a second, violent detonation. Much shorter timeline than most FAEs, which may suit the tactics of assaulting infantry units. This is not a weapon for people who don't know EXACTLY what they are doing.)

Whatever the nomenclature or the agent contained, it's pretty incontestable that the munition which delivered the brown liquid was designed to do so. There must have been an intended purpose of some kind, unless someone was firing gravy browning on a whim.

If the brown liquid was meant to be incendiary, one would normally expect it to be mixed with something sticky or a gelling agent: simple liquid fuels don't actually deliver a very high surface temperature as they tend to boil off and burn in the air, or soak into the ground and not burn. Napalm makes the target hotter than plain petrol would, and improvised alternatives usually have tar, polystyrene or natural rubber dissolved in a flammable liquid (generally benzene in the case of rubber) to produce the same sort of persistent flame clinging close to the target's surface.

We could do with a bit of context: what was there near the impact point that might have been most efficiently destroyed by:

1/ a fuel air explosive.

2/ a toxin primarily lethal to people.

3/ a herbicide primarily lethal to crops.

4/ a herbicide that would also be significantly lethal to people.

5/ some kind of bacterial broth.

I would have thought that the only real point to firing a bacterial broth over a short range would be to target the water supply for a besieged area, but that's a tactic as old as warfare so it can't easily be ruled out.

There was comment on earlier posts about fuel air explosives landing on cabbage fields, and if the vegetable field was playing a significant role in allowing a group to hold a particular town against a siege, then the cabbages might actually have been the target.

The food supply has been a target for besieging armies since biblical times.

I've been in the ordnance business almost my entire life, well over 40 years now. And I have always known rockets like these as Improvised rockets, Improvised rocket assisted munitions (IRAMs), etc. Even in Vn we called them improvised rockets when the VC used 107, 140 and 122 rockets with over caliber warheads. The IRA called them something similar. I have heard the trend Eskimo, but always as a Russian term. UMLACA I have only seen in these blogs and some others have picked that term up now. But the US called them IRAMs. As for the fuze - most ever one has it wrong. Most of the fuzes used on the Syrian IRAMs come from Iraq and Afghan. They are mostly spring loaded (that is firing bolt with multiple firing pins held under spring tension. A clip hold the firing bolt in place and a line goes from it to the launcher. When fired the clip is pulled loose, the spring drives the firing bolt into multiple bullet cartridges, normally .22 cal but others have been used. inserted into each cartridge is time fuze, the time fuze burns down and sets off non electric blasting caps and the main HE charge. These fuzes are very well machined and work just fine. It is the time fuze that screws up. There are other point detonating fuzes, but not that many. But at this time we still consider them as being classified. And remember nomenclatures are not always the same, what the Soviets call an ABCS-1, the US and NATO may call it a squirrel, just saying. Also as far as the the MIT guys with their statements about ranges, keep in mind they did their calc's without even knowing what size rocket motor was used, who made it or even what model. Just saying -while I would love to post everything I know about the Syrian chem rockets, I can't because of classifications, but I can say there is a lot about them that has been posted that is wrong. You can't do a good ID of a new system like these if you don't have good measurements and actual hands on. And everything that has been posted has been from looking at pictures and from people on the ground who have no technical knowledge about weapons systems

I've been in the ordnance business almost my entire life, well over 40 years now. And I have always known rockets like these as Improvised rockets, Improvised rocket assisted munitions (IRAMs), etc. Even in Vn we called them improvised rockets when the VC used 107, 140 and 122 rockets with over caliber warheads. The IRA called them something similar. I have heard the trend Eskimo, but always as a Russian term. UMLACA I have only seen in these blogs and some others have picked that term up now. But the US called them IRAMs. As for the fuze - most ever one has it wrong. Most of the fuzes used on the Syrian IRAMs come from Iraq and Afghan. They are mostly spring loaded (that is firing bolt with multiple firing pins held under spring tension. A clip hold the firing bolt in place and a line goes from it to the launcher. When fired the clip is pulled loose, the spring drives the firing bolt into multiple bullet cartridges, normally .22 cal but others have been used. inserted into each cartridge is time fuze, the time fuze burns down and sets off non electric blasting caps and the main HE charge. These fuzes are very well machined and work just fine. It is the time fuze that screws up. There are other point detonating fuzes, but not that many. But at this time we still consider them as being classified. And remember nomenclatures are not always the same, what the Soviets call an ABCS-1, the US and NATO may call it a squirrel, just saying. Also as far as the the MIT guys with their statements about ranges, keep in mind they did their calc's without even knowing what size rocket motor was used, who made it or even what model. Just saying -while I would love to post everything I know about the Syrian chem rockets, I can't because of classifications, but I can say there is a lot about them that has been posted that is wrong. You can't do a good ID of a new system like these if you don't have good measurements and actual hands on. And everything that has been posted has been from looking at pictures and from people on the ground who have no technical knowledge about weapons systems